Could the DJK arrest actually benefit Iowa?

[Herk]

Considering DJK was a graduating senior and Hampton/Wegher were non-producing RBs by the end of the year, could their fallout actually end up benefiting the program?

In my view, the incident sends a clear message to the current roster that these actions will not be tolerated in the future, thereby quashing further incidents. On top of this, the vacancies at the RB position have opened up the door to some serious talent (Coe, Carson, McCall). For all intents and purposes, this season was over after we lost to MN, so why not make the most out of this "purge." I think after this incident is wrapped up, we'll have better quality players on our team and an improved recruiting class.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

I think the biggest benefit we COULD get out of this is with the parents. They know that their kids will be playing for a no-nonsense coach who doesn't hesitate to put character ahead of winning (let's not forget that DJK hasn't been convicted of anything yet; Chris L. Rucker was found guilty and allowed to return to practice the day he left jail). I think it's also good that this happened while the coaches are doing their in-home visits. Being able to look a parent in the eye and explain to them exactly what's happening with the program can't hurt.

Structurally, it's a plus because we have more open scholarships now, but I think that's kinda a secondary bonus.

 

[tm3308]

DJK hasn't technically been found guilty, but he did confess to everything. So that doesn't necessarily count towards the KF/high-character meter. However, sitting A-Rob for his classroom performance even though he is eligible does. THAT is putting a student-athlete's best interests first, not winning.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

DJK hasn't technically been found guilty, but he did confess to everything. So that doesn't necessarily count towards the KF/high-character meter. However, sitting A-Rob for his classroom performance even though he is eligible does. THAT is putting a student-athlete's best interests first, not winning.

You make a good point about him admitting everything, but there are coaches out there who would play him even after a conviction if they thought it would win them a football game. In the presser, the question was asked (I'm paraphrasing) if DJK would be allowed to use the facilities to prepare for the draft. A lot of coaches would have given one of two answers; either, "He's no longer on the team, but our facilities remain available for him to prepare for the next stage in his life," or "He hasn't been convicted of anything yet; we'll cross that bridge when we get there," in order to keep the door open in case he's found not guilty. But KF didn't leave any wiggle room, basically saying that even if he's found not guilty he'll still be persona non grata around the athletic facilities.

It may not be a big deal HOW it was handled, it may just be enough for some parents to know THAT it was handled and that their son won't be entering a program in trouble.

 

[CHShawk]

I think the biggest benefit we COULD get out of this is with the parents. They know that their kids will be playing for a no-nonsense coach who doesn't hesitate to put character ahead of winning (let's not forget that DJK hasn't been convicted of anything yet; Chris L. Rucker was found guilty and allowed to return to practice the day he left jail). I think it's also good that this happened while the coaches are doing their in-home visits. Being able to look a parent in the eye and explain to them exactly what's happening with the program can't hurt.

Structurally, it's a plus because we have more open scholarships now, but I think that's kinda a secondary bonus.

You could go the other way though and say this is yet another arrest in a long streak of arrests for the Iowa football team. Outside the program, people tend to think that Iowa pulls some of their players out of the Johnson County Jail. The last statement is extreme but you get the point. Parents might weary to send their kids to play with a team that they view as having multiple thugs on the roster. The DJK situation would especially hurt in this case because he was associated with a drug house. If it's a public intox (not saying public intoxications are right) people are more apt to generally throw these penalties to the side since college students are arrested seemingly every weekend for public intoxication and in many cases these students are good kids who had a night of bad judgement. But when you have situations where drug dealing, sexual assault/rape, burglary, etc., then your image is going to take a much greater hit because obviously they are worse offenses and less acceptable for people to push aside. The latter situations IMO do way more harm than good for the image of your program no matter how the coach handles it, because you can also say why does the coach recruit the types of guys who would do something like this.

One other thing to point out is the matter of the amount of trust parents have in their kids to make the right decisions and to stay out of trouble is a huge factor in this decision.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

You could go the other way though and say this is yet another arrest in a long streak of arrests for the Iowa football team. Outside the program, people tend to think that Iowa pulls some of their players out of the Johnson County Jail. The last statement is extreme but you get the point. Parents might weary to send their kids to play with a team that they view as having multiple thugs on the roster. The DJK situation would especially hurt in this case because he was associated with a drug house. If it's a public intox (not saying public intoxications are right) people are more apt to generally throw these penalties to the side since college students are arrested seemingly every weekend for public intoxication and in many cases these students are good kids who had a night of bad judgement. But when you have situations where drug dealing, sexual assault/rape, burglary, etc., then your image is going to take a much greater hit because obviously they are worse offenses and less acceptable for people to push aside. The latter situations IMO do way more harm than good for the image of your program no matter how the coach handles it, because you can also say why does the coach recruit the types of guys who would do something like this.

One other thing to point out is the matter of the amount of trust parents have in their kids to make the right decisions and to stay out of trouble is a huge factor in this decision.

Your last statement totally sums up my feelings on it. Most parents would be mortified if their kid wound up in the mess DJK is in. However, I'd be willing to bet most parents think to themselves, "Little Johnny would NEVER get caught up in that sort of thing!". I think, for that reason, that the resolution outweighs the offense itself. If a parent knows that their kid's coach is willing to pull one of his best players based on an allegation, they'd probably think that would keep a lot of the riff-raff away from their kid. Ya know, since little Johnny would NEVER get caught up in that sort of thing!

 

[Imlivingthedream]

if the program actually sat the players who tested positive the first time, Id think we had a coach who put doing the right thing ahead of winning.

That would be a true "no nonsense" approach.

 

[kegunder]

Players are suspended for their first serious drug test violation, every time.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

Players are suspended for their first serious drug test violation, every time.

Not necessarily, at least according to the presser. They said that they have the discretion to make the decision, but that counseling is also an alternative possibility for a first offense.

 

[HawksFlyHigh]

Players are suspended for their first serious drug test violation, every time.

If it is an NCAA test yes. If not, then that is not true.